Should we teach on torture?

So there I was...
sitting in one of our philosophy department "brown bag" meetings sometime last year at UCONN -- I believe Dr. Kupperman was presenting a talk on utilitarianism -- and an interesting conversation came up regarding the education of military members on tough ethical issues.
Needless to say, I was interested.

Basically, a small debate arose over whether or not we should even teach future military members about unethical practices such as torture. (I think the disagreement was between Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Kupperman if I recall correctly).

One side thought that if we bring something like torture into the (relatively) sterile classroom environment, then eventually the students examining it in this type of environment become de-senitized to it. The idea being that if we teach military students about torture, then it can make it seem more normal -- once you start analyzing something like torture, the more and more normal it can begin to sound. The fear being, of course, that then if those military folks are later in a situation where torture is brought up, it will be considered a more normal option -- it is now something "on the table," as it were. They've considered it, weighed it, discussed it... it's part of the conversation. So, this position went on, they would rather a military education classroom never even discuss torture -- don't even give it that normalcy. By discussing something we are opening the can on it. The folks holding this position were rather passionate about it: "The last thing you'd ever want to do is teach military members about torture!"

The opposing position, of course, was sincerely convinced that military members are precisely the folks who need to deeply analyze, debate, and converse over tough topics such as torture. The idea here being that if/when that military member is later presented with a torture situation they are better equiped to handle it and rationally deliberate on it (and hopefully be more likely to make the right decision).

Obviously,it should be clear enough where I fall on this. If I was convinced by the first position (we'll call it the "don't normalize it" position) then I certainly wouldn't be teaching future military officers about the ethics of war. But I remember thinking then and now again as I reflect on it, the argument does indeed raise some interesting questions.

A good parrallel, I think, is to be found in marriage. Many couples I know suggest and a lot of the advice you hear or read from marriage "experts" is for couples to to literally never even bring up the "D" word. The idea is that once you start talking about divorce (what it would be like, what we would do if we got divorced, how we would handle it, what is divorce's moral status, etc, etc) you've put the option on the table. By even talking about divorce a couple makes it that much more likely that the option will happen because the option slowly becomes more and more normalized and plausible as it is discussed.

So... If it's smart to never even bring up the "D" word in marriage, then perhaps it's wise to never bring up the "T" word (and others, one would presume) in the military.

I'm not convinced... but it is a curious argument. Any takers? Any defenders of the "don't normalize it" position? Any good arguments on why this position (and parallel positions, perhaps) fail?